I'm impatient with the news these days. I've had training in philosophy, Gestalt psychotherapy and sociology, to which I'd add some hard thinking.
The above have helped me to see , to a degree, what journalism and broadcasting are about, how they work, why they have the skewings they do.
Journalists, broadcasters and politicians (and much of the public) belong to the same world, and all get sneery of anything not already inside their world view.
It's useful to think about the processes of employing people for those areas. So journalists can't see some things, because if they could, they might not have been employed in the first place.
Journalists are always complaining about being criticised (oh, how defensive they get when criticised) on the grounds of "we're just the messenger". If that were really true, we'd only have/need one newspaper, designed to cater for all who are vaguely literate.
No, they're not. We've all heard of editors, so their has to be a selection going on. Do the public get to see editorial meetings regularly? i dawn't fink soooooooo. Many will have heard the phrase, "...went unreported in the west" and similar remarks.
Perhaps there are mudcatters who have been involved in news stories and thus have first-hand knowledge of any difference between their experience and what and how it was reported.
Reporters have agendas. I've read many times about journalists (and many broadcasters are journalists) turning up at some event, and when they aren't getting what they came for, just go away again.
News is often so fast that PREJUDICES of both journalists and the public have more of a chance to be encouraged than THOUGHT or KNOWLEDGE let alone WISDOM.
One neat recent example of omission. Melvyn Barg , in his excellent In Our Time series (BBC Radio 4,Thurs), did 45 minutes on the history of astronomy, and 45 on Isaac Newton, and managed not to mention astrology once. Not quite Hamlet without the prince, but close, given that astronomy arose out of astrology, and Newton was an astrologer too.
My point there is simply a way that the news media work. You'd only know about it if you were already relevantly informed (or were naturally suspicious), so the ill-informed (percentage anyone?) are vulnerable.
As a therapist, it is a bit of a sad sight hearing/reading a journo/caster/politico endeavouring, as they so oft do, to understand or at least explain a person in the news.

Auto. Oh, sorry, BBC including World Service not often enough, Guardian(intermittently), others v.v.occassionally. Would love the time and energy for more,"So little time,so much to do."

Auto